W^itli this charge it is that the leaders of the Sanhedrin come before I'ilate. Pilate has the rough Kouian sense of justice, and he feels that the charge is not proved, lie sees no evidence that .Jesus is really a formidable con.spir.ator, or even a cou.spirator at all against the State. He therefore desires to rele.ise Him ; but the .Tews insist, the headers lieing backed by the clamour of the crowd. The Sanhedrists know the weak point in Pil.ite's armour, aii<l they fiusten upon it: 'If thou relea.se this man, thou art iii>t C'iT'.Si'ir's friend : every one that niakelh himself a king speaketh agiiiiist Cie.sar' (.In 1".''-, a most lifelike touch). Kor themselves they protest their loyalty, ' We have no king but Ca-.sar' (.In 10"). For many of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees a.s well .as .Sadduci'es, this would be true, and llio.se for whom it was not would discreetly hoUl their peace. To this jiressure Pilate in the enil gives way, washing his hauiis of the responsibility. He might have taken a nobler
course, but he felt insecure of his position ; he knew that the Jews had matter of ju.st complaint against him ; and sooner than face their malice, with the inconveniences which it might cause, h» let them have their will.
LiTEitATi-RK. — With this section may be compared two works ofjtnasiimtlon : Dr. K.lwin .\. Abbott. Philoclii-itliiit, London, !>"»; and An Ot/irr« S/iw /Jim, London, l^lt.'i (written fr.mi a Jewish point of view, but i'viiipulhelic and i^^^rlR•li^e). Also Chwolson, DiiH Utste J'tin»<t//tii/it Cfirinti, etc.. ?»t. Peter.*iburg, 1SI»'J, Anhanp: 'Das Verhaltniss d. IMiarisaer. Sadducaer, u. der Juden uberhaupt zii Jesus I hrislUK ' (nilnluildni; the opposition of the Fhari&ees. and laying the blame upon the Sadducees [Jewish, but written with much epeciiu know ledfc-e]).
ii. 37(6 Chronohiyy of the Last Week. — \ number of chronological difficulties meet its in the narrative of this Last Week. (1) 'J'he prima facie view would certainly be that the Anointing at Bethany wa-s placed by Mark two days (Mk 14') and by John star days (Jn 12') before the Passover. (•2) The common opinion is that the Crucifixion took place on a Friday, and the Last Supper on the evening of Thursday ; but it has also been argued that the two events took place on Thur.s- day and \Vedne.sday. (3) There is a much larger divi.sion of opinion as to the <late of the Crucifixion in the .Jewish calendar, and the relation of the Last Supper to the I'a.schal Meal. The Synoptists .seem to identify the two, whereas St. .John ex- pressly places the Last Supjier before the Pa.ssover, and would make the Crucifixion fall on Nisan 14. (4) The authorities also app<^ar to differ as to the time of d.ay occupied by tlie Crucifixion. Acconl- ing to Mk 15-" the time of the Crucifixion itself was the 'third hour' ( = 9 a.m.); according to Jn lil'« the trial was not quite over by the 'sixth hour' ( = noon), and therefore the Crucifixion was still later.
( >f these discrepancies No. 2 need not detain us. The view that the Crucifixion took place upon a Thursday is almost peculiar to Dr. Westcott (Introd. to tlip Slmhj of the (■'ospels. p. 322, ed. 3). It turns upon a pressing of the phra.se 'three days and three night.s' in Ml 12'", along with the proba- bility of confusion between 'preparation for the Passover'' and the more ordinary u.se of the word in the sense of 'preparation /or the Sahhalh^ {i.e. Friday). The phrasing of Mt. 27'''- is somewhat peculiar, but not really less so on this way of reckoning than the other, because the day de- scribed .IS the 'morrow after the Preparation' would be itself the weekly Tapo(r«e7J. And Mt 12" is due only to the evangelist, and is not supjiorted by the other authorities. [( )n the length of the interval between the Crucifixion and the Kesurrec- tion see esp. art. ClIKti.NoLoOY OF NT in this Diet. i. 410'' (with FieUl, Ot. Xorv. iii. p. 7, there referred to), and Wright. XT Problems, p. l.'id ff.].
No. 1 is commonly removed by treating the note of time in Mk 14' || as referring to the events of vv. '■ - '" " and not to the intervening narrative of VV.3-'. In support of this, Meyer-Weiss (ed. 8. <7i/ lor.) points to analogoiLs cases of intrusive matter in .Mk 3--'" 4"' -^ tl'*--"" 7»-»'. On the other hand. M'Clellan ((lospels, p. 472 f.) restricts the applica- tion of Jn 12' to the arrival at liethany, which, according to him, was on the afternoon of Friday, Ni.sjin ». The Anointing he would place on the evening of Tuesday, Nisan 12. Kitlier view is po.<- sible, anil neither can be verifieil. If we think that Ihi- fourth evangelist ilelilierntely corrects his predece.s.sors, we shall pmbably give the prefer- ence to him. On such a point Mark is not a tirsi- hand authority, and the connexion between his placing of the Hetrayal and of the Anointing may well lie loose.
.\s to 4) the difference in regard to the hour of the Crucifiscion, attempts have been mad- with
C31
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
some persistence to prove that St. John used a (lilleiviit mode of rcckonini; time from that in (■(immon use. The writer of tliis was at one lime inclined to look with favour on the.se attempts. If tlie )>remiss could be proved, the data would work out satisfactorily. Hut, in view of the arts, by Mr. .1. A. Cro.ss in Clfiss. liev. ISS'.ll, p. 24.') IT., and by I'rof. Uam-say in A'jy)o»(7oi-, 18'.K'{, i. 210 ff., it nmst iletiuitely be said that the major premiss cannot be proved, and that the attempt to reeon<'ile the two statenienis on this basis breaks down (cf. also Wright, Problems, p. 149 ff.).